Talk:Hebrides/Archive 1#English-speaking

Ireland forms part of the British Isles; there is a discussion in that article on other possible terms for the island group (Islands of the North Atlantic, etc), but "British Isles and Ireland" is non-sensical. "British Isles" is by far the most widely used term for the archipelago and is particularly useful in this article which does not describe a location in Ireland. Warofdreams 17:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

: If the article on Ireland has a discussion then discuss it there. This article is about the Hebrides. Either way, it's not a surprise if the Irish are not too kin to use the word "British" for their own island (they have obvious historical reasons which are totally understandable). The word "British" in "British Isles" is as anachronistic as the Union Jack that is currently in use (instead of the flag of Great Britain of 1606 which would be more appropriate for about a century at this point in time).

: ICE77 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Edgar did not 'sign over' the Isles to Magnus, because he clearly could not give what he did not possess. The exact political status of the Hebrides had been uncertain for many years. The treaty of 1098 merely attempted to create a clear demarcation, with the Isles going to Magnus and the mainland to Edgar.

The Hebrides sections are weak on the physical geography and the agricultural methods of the region. I will think about what to do about it and encourage others to do also. MartinY 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rcpaterson 02:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created a Template:Infobox Scottish island for use with Scottish islands which is based on the existing Template:Infobox Scotland place but which contains parameters which may be more useful for smaller islands which don't have their own police force or Lord Lieutenant. Comments are welcome on the associated talk page.

I have created it as a template for all Scottish islands and used an image of a longboat next to the Saltire to emphasise the difference with the Scotland place Template. The said image is called Image:McdonaldBoat.jpg. Before ancient foes of Clan Donald complain, I am assured by User:Calgacus that the proper name for this image is a 'Lymphad' and that its was actually purloined from the Russian wikipedia. He also points out that the same image appears for example at the bottom of Image:Norse-Gael_Warrior.PNG[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norse-Gael_Warrior.PNG] and the Sinclair Orkney arms [http://www.atlasgeo.net/FOTW/flags/gb-ork.html#banner] [http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/HSSforum/viewtopic.php?p=9479&sid=380a353d09a66951c1f5089273add491] which suggests to me that the lymphad may be appropriate for all our isles whether they have a primarily Celtic or primarily Norse history. This note has been copied in various places including Talk:Orkney Talk:Shetland Talk:Hebrides Talk:Islands of the Clyde etc.

An example of the template may be found at:Flannan Isles

There is space for references. Groupings and population information are available at List of islands of Scotland the latter being based on the 2001 census. Area measurements for the 162 islands of 100 acres or more in size are available in Haswell-Smith, Hamish. (2004) The Scottish Islands. Edinburgh. Canongate. I'd be happy to pass the relevant numbers on if needed, although I doubt I am going to get around to listing all 162. There is more on this subject at Template talk:Infobox Scottish island. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know if I'm likely to get round to listing all 162 either, but it would be very interesting to see the list. Warofdreams talk 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a historical title of Scottish kings "King of Scotland and The Western Isles", denoting that a) they were considered a separate legal entity from the mainland, and b) they came under Scottish soveriegnity at some period? I'm uncertain, however, if the title is legit or a romantic contrivance. LessHeard vanU 12:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Western Isles' stands in contradistinction to the 'Northern Isles' of Orkney, Fair Isle and Shetland. I and many others have grown up always knowing the entire Hebridean chain by the centuries old alternative term 'the Western Isles'. It wasn't a term we used "sometimes": it was the standard term, 'the Hebrides' seeming much more romantic or poetic. This perception of those in the Outer Isles who think that they comprise the entirety of the Western Isles is just an attempt to rewrite nomenclature to suit themselves. Some of them even claim that only the Outer Isles are 'really' the Innse Gall. It's complete historical nonsense.

Minimal pairs are:

Inner Isles v Outer Isles

Inner Hebrides v Outer Hebrides

Western Isles v Northern Isles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.23.31 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:I've added a few notes about the confusion and its origins. Ben MacDui 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How is this supposed to be pronounced? Zigzig20s 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Heb-ri-deez 69.110.26.30 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:It should maybe best be written with IPA in consideration, like some of the more major Wikipedia articles. Nagelfar (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, although I for one, and I suspect the majority have no idea as to how IPA works. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 13:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm keen on the use of the term "archipelago" in this article.

It's a bit of a "fuzzy" word with no technically unambiguous definition, and I personally see the inner and outer isles as being quite distinct, thus two archipelagos.

Due to the potential for confusion and disagreement, I'm inclined to take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand my above point -- the British Isles is "an archipelago". Not only is it a pretty meaningless term, but I don't recall ever having heard the word outside of very technical contexts -- it's not common in the UK at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not my experience. See for example:

• Murray, W.H. (1973) The Islands of Western Scotland. London. Eyre Methuen. Page 23.
• Murray (1966) The Hebrides. London. Heinemann. Page 1: "An archipelago of more than five hundred..." are the opening words.
• "The archipelago of St Kilda" - the opening words of the SNH St Kilda World Heritage site (http://www.kilda.org.uk/). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

: But aren't those books covered by my earlier term "technical contexts"? It's not exactly man-in-the-street language, is it?

: Regardless, your last quote demonstrated my point quite nicely: St Kilda is an archipelago. It is part of the archipelago of the Western Isles, which is part of the archipelago of the Hebrides, which itself forms a part of the archipelago of the British Isles.

: I don't feel that the word adds anything to the article, and actually serves to make it harder for the average person to read. I reckon it qualifies as jargon. Prof Wrong (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

::You are right - there are smaller archipelagos within larger ones. Nothing unusual about that. Murray was arguably the foremost author of his generation on the subject and his books were specifically for a lay audience. I wonder if it is possible you think this word is unusual, when I would describe it as fairly ubiquitous in the context, because you are simply unfamiliar with the subject matter? I don't have any evidence to hand but I rather imagine knowledge of the word 'archipelago' is part of the Standard Grade geography curriculum rather than 'technical' or ' jargon'. Besides, should a passing 14 year old be confused, those helpful blue links would put them right. See also, the leads of: Philippines, Balearic Islands, Shetland, Japanese Archipelago etc. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia is supposed to be for people who are not familiar with the subject matter!

:::I personally know the word, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who don't. (And it didn't come up in my Standard Grade 12 years ago.)

:::I've just run a corpus check on the word "archipelago" in the British National Corpus. It comes up twice in the spoken corpus, and both matches were from a single (academic) lecture on the history of China. It isn't in general use.

:::The "blue link" thing is a red herring; compare the following two variations on the article's opening sentence:

:::The Hebrides comprise a widespread and diverse archipelago off the west coast of Scotland.

:::The Hebrides are a widespread and diverse group of islands off the west coast of Scotland.

:::One of these doesn't need a blue link, which in my mind makes it superior.

:::Prof Wrong (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[Removing indent]

Bardcom's last edit to the page says "The word is used in lots of articles. Encyclopedias shouldn't be dumbed down"

I don't care what other articles say, and I was of the understanding that other articles on wikipedia can't be cited as justification in this way.

While I agree that Wikipedia should not be "dumbed down", I do not think it should be artificially intellectualised either. Archipelago is not a word in common currency. I asked three people today, all university graduates. The first thought it was "some kind of specific region on land" (and thought I'd spelt it wrong), the second had never heard of it, and the third didn't recognise it at first, but then said "isn't that a small group of islands" and said the Hebrides didn't fit his notion of an archipelago.

As I've already said, in the British National Corpus (spoken) it only comes up in an academic lecture.

What does "archipelago" do for the article that "group of islands" doesn't do in simpler, easier to understand English?

Until someone can give a valid reason for use of the word over the simpler alternative, I will continue to revert it out.Prof Wrong (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

:Hi Prof, I know you're trying to do the right thing and that your edits are in Good Faith. But you can't simple change terminology just because you think it's wrong. There are policies for this - notably WP:NOR. The onus is on you to provide the references {{Talkfact}} to back up your claim that "archipelago" is not understood by most people reading the article. Until then, the original article remains. Please do not revert until you can back up your POV. Bardcom (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

::*scratches head*

::I could understand that if I was changing the content -- references are of course needed then.

::As I'm not adding any factual content to the article, there's no place for me to cite anything. I am changing the presentation, not the content.

::But I did provide a reference of sorts here on the talk page: The British National Corpus.

::Have a look: [http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/x.asp]

::Enter the word "archipelago" in there and select "spoken". You get two matches, both from an academic lecture.

::This is published data, representative of UK English usage. If running a search on it constitutes original research, and if the NOR rule extends to presentation as well as content, then the "no jargon" rule is essentially unenforceable: there aren't any published academic papers telling us conclusively which words are and aren't jargon, so what else can I do?

::Anyway, I didn't say that most people people wouldn't understand it, but my point is that "group of islands" will be understood by absolutely everybody. Why not make things understood by everyone?

::*scratches head again*

::Did the person who originally added "archipelago" have to provide proof that it was a "good word"? Why does a later editor have to prove that an alternative is better?

::Prof Wrong (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Prof, I am sure you mean no harm, but this is not [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Isles| The Western Isles]. Your view is one that I have seen before in reference to social sciences articles, but a quick glimpse at (for example) Hilbert's tenth problem or Peridotite suggest there is whole world of vocabulary on offer on Wikipedia articles. This is an article in need of an enormous amount of improvement. Your efforts might be better spent in adding content than quibbling about the existing wording. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

::But we would expect an article like Peridotite to be accessed by a more informed reader than one on a place like the Hebrides. It is to be expected (and is indeed necessary) for such an article to use a more technical lexicon.

::Prof Wrong (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

:Dear Prof, also because an archipelago defines the type of grouping. It's an appropriate word, and if someone doesn't understand the word, they only have to click on the word and another page explains. The reason I asked for a reference is because you claimed "Archipelago is not a word in common currency.", but backed it up with Original Research. Read the Policyto see what constitutes a verifiable source. Otherwise, let's just call it what it is, an archipelago. Bardcom (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

::"archipelago defines the type of grouping".

::Archipelago defines it as "a chain or cluster of islands" and says "It is now used to generally refer to any island group". It also says "Archipelagoes are often volcanic" -- often, not always.

::I still don't see how the term is any more complete or descriptive than "group of islands", and you have both yet to explain this.

::As to NOR, here's what [[WP:NOR|the policy] says:

::Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

::I have put no "analysis or synthesis" in the article. My conclusions are A) on the talk page, B) refer to presentation (not content) and C) are "clearly advanced by the sources". My conclusion was self-evident in the source material.

::Prof Wrong (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Prof, the definition of Archipelago fits, it's the correct word. Your point about volcanic is probably an own-goal, since the Hebrides are volcanic in nature. You might also go back and reread the policy on original research and look out in particular for the word "published". The full test from your selective quote reads This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Up till this point, it's easy to assume good faith on your part, but sometimes you have to honestly realise that your good idea isn't supported (yet) and that you have to put our idea on hold. Bardcom (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only wikipedia rule that is relevant here is "concensus" -- and as it's two against one, you win. Prof Wrong (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

:Well, consensus isn't a vote... It's not because it's 2 against 1, it's because there doesn't appear to be any support or argument that says that your suggestion is better, and there's no references to indicate that what you are saying is anything more than your opinion (Original Research). As said before, if you can find a source or reference, it gives your argument more weight. But thanks for dropping back and closing the loop. --Bardcom (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, put Gillen back in then. Here's another reference: http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=252 (and it's associated pages). I'll leave it up to you to format the reference I've added (I'm a bit green on this stuff at the moment), but I don't rate the tourist board one at all. Mister Flash (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:The phrases: "and in geological terms are composed of the oldest rocks in the British Isles. They have a diverse geology ranging in age from the older Precambrian strata to Tertiary igneous intrusions." are contradictory so I have removed them. The above reference states the rocks are the oldest in GB, but does not contradict the idea that they are the oldest in Europe. I will add another reference asap. Ben MacDui 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Reference 1 is of no use. It is not relevant to the Hebrides. Please give me a reason for not immediately removing it. In general, printed references are not as accessible as online ones. In this instance, and unlike you, most people don't have a copy of the stated reference on their bookshelves. Even I, with a library of 2000 or so books, do not have a copy of Gillen, and I bet a penny to a pound of the brown stuff that the local library doesn't have it either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the reference, but if you could find an online one it would be so much better. As to a reference "not contradicting something". Eh! Please do find another reference asap that actually backs up your assertion rather than "not contradicting it" (preferably an online one). Mister Flash (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Ben, are you sure about the oldest European rocks being in the Hebrides? I've now seen various sources which mention the Lofoten Islands, areas of the Baltic Shield the mainland of Scotland, and areas of England as being the location of "the oldest rocks" or "some of the oldest rocks". All seems a bit wishy-washy to me to have the claim here as well. Mister Flash (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Ref 1 is relevant in that it provides evidence that the Hebrides do not have the oldest rocks in the British Isles pace the Coastguard Agency. The note should probably be amended to say so. WP:V does not require the use of on-line references and as Gillen & McKirdy are both currently in print, and "university level" I am quite happy with them. I have no doubt that there are all sorts of claims being made and if they are verifiable that's fine. The language has been amended to include "amongst" to cater for this. As far as I know the oldest rocks in England are about 700 million years old. There seem to be two different definitions here. The Lewisian gneiss covers a large area and at a certain level of generality is the oldest bedrock in the UK/Europe. At a greater level of detail Gruinard seems to win out, although from what I can gather it is a relatively small outcrop. This seems to be a bit like distinguishing the oldest forest and the oldest tree - which might not be in that forest, (although the analogy is hard to sustain geologically).

::::There is another issue here. The article fails the lead criteria completely. Writing a lead paragraph is not straightforward, and this one doesn't work because it launches into a possibly contentious fact without expanding on it lower down. Indeed in the perfect world there would be an article "Geology of the Hebrides" that would be summarised in a section here called "Geology" and form which a sentence would appear in the lead. Ben MacDui 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Ok, it's looking better, but I can't agree with this "amongst the oldest" stuff. It's just not definitive enough. If the rocks are the oldest in Britain then let's say that, and get a good reference to it. As I said, there's material all over the place claiming "among oldest in Europe", even the Malvern Hills (which I think is incorrect anyway). We need specificity, not "maybe" and "among". Just a thought. Mister Flash (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, another point. I can't agree on the reference 1 business either. It's a negative reference. The Hebrides don't have the biggest shipyard in Britain, but I see no reference to that effect. Let's just get some referenced positives in here. Mister Flash (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hebrides: "The Hebrides were settled during the Mesolithic era around 6500 BC, after the climatic conditions improved enough to sustain human settlement."

History of the Outer Hebrides: "The Hebrides were settled early on in the settlement of the British Isles, perhaps as early as the Mesolithic era, around 8500-8250 BC, after the climatic conditions improved enough to sustain human settlement."

Inner Hebrides: "The Hebrides were settled early on in the settlement of the British Isles, perhaps as early as the Mesolithic era, around 8500-8250 BC, after the climatic conditions improved enough to sustain human settlement."

Something went wrong here. I guess the date '8500-8250' originally wasn't 'BC' but 'before now' and the authors forgot to subtract '2000' to get '6500-6250' which would match to the date in the Hebrides-article. I consider 6500 BC more likely, compared with the articles about Orkney and Shetland. And I would prefer if it is written '6500 - 6250' with spaces between the words. Truchses (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:The earliest Mesolithic site in the Hebrides is on Rùm and dated to 7700-7500. An Corran on Skye was discovered before this site and is dated to 8,500 years ago so your analysis may well be correct. There is some indirect evidence of older human activity than Rum from South Uist, but all of them should probably say "from the 8th millennium BC" or something along those lines. Ben MacDui 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the sentence "The name 'Hebrides' is thought to be a misunderstanding of the classical Latin name Hebudes, where u was misread ri." I'd love to have more detail, like

• thought by whom?
• who is meant to have had this misunderstanding?
• when is the name "Hebrides" first recorded?

Any information gratefully received (and should go into the article). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

: Given the Roman's and Greek's famous tendency to mangle foreign words (they were the English speaking tourists of their day ;) ), I'm dubious on that myself. There's no clear etymology for it in either language so it's most likely a name they picked up from elsewhere. Whether the modern English version came via Latin or not... we don't know, and we can't know. To say one way or the other would be mere speculation. (And I prefer to speculate that it's a Basque word, but let's not go into that ;) )....

:Prof Wrong (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:: A bit of nosing around came up with a book originally published in 1848 that used the Latin "Hebudes" (Six Old English Chronicles, of Which Two are Now First Translated from the Monkish Latin Original) and another from 1844 (Heimskringla or The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway). This doesn't support any notion of the Latin being lost or corrupted....

:: Anyway, back to more "hard" evidence. I've tracked down a map that I recognise, which is quite possibly the earliest surviving reference: John Speed's The Kingdome of Scotland, at the [http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail.cfm?id=164|National Library of Scotland website], first published in 1610. The map includes the marking The Yles of Hebrides Caled of Pliny Haebudes, of Beda Meuamae.

:: This discredits the quoted source for the following statement from the article Spelling: Hebrides is an 18th Century misunderstanding of the classical Latin name Hebudes, where u was read ri (see Hebrides: Name). (The source is given as Louis DEROY & Marianne MULON, 1992, Dictionnaire de noms de lieux, Paris: Le Robert, article "Hébrides".) If I'm not very much mistaken, this is one of the oldest "vernacular" maps we've got, so anything else being either foreign or Latin kind of suggests they would be ruled by the older sources. (Hell, we still call Deutschland "Germany" after a bunch of old Latin maps.) However, they're not, which is a shame, as that kind of reduces the evidence for a vernacular/classical split.

::There's another map on the NLS site, Scotia by Tomasso Porcacchi, in Italian, which calls them "Hebrides Insule" and it's from 1572. [http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail.cfm?id=127] And one in Latin using the term "Hebrides Insulae", from sometime before 1566. [http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail.cfm?id=126] Speed's map seems to take it's cues from this one: [http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail.cfm?id=128]. Even the celebrated Mercator had "Hebrides Insulae"[http://www.nls.uk/maps/scotland/detail.cfm?id=130].

::It's pretty much impossible to know whether this change occurred to align maps with common contemporary usage or as an accident. All we know is that claims of the term's 18th century origin are at best greatly exaggerated, at worst ill-informed.

::Prof Wrong (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Non map reference "Quhen the Scottis cam in the Iles of Albion first, quhilkes we cal Hebrides now;" From The historie of Scotland, wrytten first in Latin by the most reuerend and worthy Jhone Leslie, bishop of Rosse, and translated in Scottish by Father James Dalrymple ... 1596 .. ; Ed. by the Rev. Father E. G. Cody.... Vol.1. 1596. There is another quote from the same book using the term. It's the earliest source for the term at the [www.dsl.ac.uk|DSL]. None of the other forms quoted in the article appear in the DSL at all.

:::Looking again at the article, I'd forgotten all about "hyperborea" -- why is that hiding in history rather than etymology? -- and it's a plausible theory I suppose, but why would it have undergone such radical change in the ancient Greek in such a short period of time, when its etymology would have remained clear? Hyperborea was used in a 55BC work and Ptolemy was working only(?) 2 centuries later.

:::Prof Wrong (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Many thanks and congratulations on having dug out such a lot of good material. My own investigations are consistent with yours: The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives "Hebridean" as attested in 1600. I'm a bit frustrated because I'm sure I remember seeing, a few years ago, a reference to a paper in which someone had given an Old Norse derivation for Hebrides, but now I can't trace it. Perhaps someone reading this will be able to help.

::::Manwhile I'm sure that what you've uncovered should go into the article. In accordance with WP:NPOV the "misreading" theory will have to go in too, because it's widely known, but put back to before 1566 at the latest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

::::: [https://archive.org/details/aninquiryintohi01pinkgoog/page/n313 John Pinkerton, An Inquiry into the History of Scotland Preceding the Reign of Malcolm III, Volume 2, pp 300-302] - Eroica (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

::::: [https://archive.org/details/dememorabilibusm00soli/page/n60 Solinus de Memorabilibus Mundi, diligenter annotatus et indicio alphabetico prenotatus] - Eroica (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"General view of the Hebrides"...? No it isn't - it's a view (with added plane wing) of part of one of the islands - maybe Lewis, or Uist, I don't know. Can someone with local knowledge clarify this please? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:Possibly North Uist - very hard to tell unless you happen to know the exact area very well. I suppose it is a "typical view" or similar, but feel free to replace it so far as I'm concerned. Ben MacDui 18:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

::Unfortunately I've hardly been to the Hebrides - if it is to be replaced, it would be done better by someone who knows the area, maybe with an image from [http://www.geograph.org.uk/ Geograph]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Done. The article needs a complete revamp - ideally in summary style based on the Inner Hebrides and Ben MacDui 08:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Talk:Hebrides/GA1}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Hebrides. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=677912790 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150510140758/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm/occpapers/occasional-paper-10.html to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm/occpapers/occasional-paper-10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060827031217/http://www.thehedgehog.co.uk:80/campaign.htm to http://www.thehedgehog.co.uk/campaign.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Hebrides. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=707190154 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510140758/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm/occpapers/occasional-paper-10.html to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm/occpapers/occasional-paper-10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100122045621/http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk:80/oswebsite/getamap/ to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In common usage, people who are not from the islands, even if they are British and especially if they are not Gaelic-speaking, are considered "foreign" and called "white settlers" in English or "Gall" (non-Gael) in Gaelic. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=iXbdAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=Hebrides+white+settlers&source=bl&ots=s8ll1CFLtx&sig=0qUwl-0p-ii1_08H81ZV3p-_9As&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgusedgt3RAhWEVyYKHTuWD0gQ6AEIXDAJ#v=onepage&q=Hebrides%20white%20settlers&f=false here]. I could cite more examples if you'd like. Alázhlis (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

:There is only one relevant use of the word "foreign" in that source, on page 36, dating from 1910. That is hardly sufficient to claim it as "common usage". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

::The book is titled "white settlers." It is hardly WP:Original Research to suggest that this means "foreign." You are correct that it is unnecessary in context, but the term was not misapplied. However, I don't wish to get into an unproductive discussion, so I'll leave it at that. Alázhlis (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

: I know that in Wikipedia terms the mere fact that I am from the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides does not make me a reliable source, but in my experience 'foreign' was never a word used to describe all non-Hebrideans, and 'white settlers' was a term used only when one wished to be insulting or dismissive. Iaineditor (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

: For interest, perhaps the most common term used to describe people from away who had come to live on the island would have been 'incomers' ('from away', of course, is another). 'White settlers' was used, never positively or neutrally (unless humorously), to describe a particular kind of incomer. (Others may have different experiences and memories. None of this is authoritatively encyclopedic, but it may be of interest nonetheless! :-) ) Iaineditor (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

::Thanks so much for your insight. I have indeed seen "incomers" more often and it seems like a more neutral descriptor. Alázhlis (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hebrides. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=773045847 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119035350/http://www.isle-of-lewis.com/history/blackhouses.htm to http://www.isle-of-lewis.com/history/blackhouses.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130909233045/http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/Misc/Etymology.html to http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/Misc/Etymology.html
• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://sagnanet.is/saganet/?MIval=%2FNextPage&Manuscript=100128&imgpage=598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090518044124/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19942716_en_10.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19942716_en_10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313003106/http://www.appins.org/martin.htm to http://www.appins.org/martin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hebrides. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781393558 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226101259/http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=OTHE00024&mode=normalized to http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=OTHE00024&mode=normalized
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140530191658/http://donniemunro.co.uk/bio.htm to http://www.donniemunro.co.uk/bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127115218/http://romanmap.com/htm/nomina/insula/Eirimon.htm to http://www.romanmap.com/htm/nomina/insula/Eirimon.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603050143/http://www.kilda.org.uk/frame2.htm to http://www.kilda.org.uk/frame2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150114203456/http://www.isle-of-south-uist.co.uk/attractions-south-uist.htm to http://www.isle-of-south-uist.co.uk/attractions-south-uist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hebrides. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792411880 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604044350/http://www.castlescotland.net/the-castles/d/dunvegan.html to http://www.castlescotland.net/the-castles/d/dunvegan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hebrides. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=808151715 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029191741/http://www.duntulmcastle.co.uk/skye_wildlife.php to http://www.duntulmcastle.co.uk/skye_wildlife.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:CelticBrian, I reverted one of your edits for 1) opinion-based statement that Gaelic culture only survives in the Hebrides, 2) implication that Gaelic music is now limited to the Hebrides (much of the recordings, even by Hebridean-based artists, are made in Glasgow or Inverness, and an increasing number of artists such as Rachel Walker have no connection to the Gàidhealtachd at all). Catrìona (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

:I think he clearly means the predominant culture/identity, which was/is apt (but even the Highlands are not particularly Gaelic now). I mean they make all kinds of music in Glasgow and Inverness, country western culture is not prevalent there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

::It's abundantly clear you didn't even read the text that was reverted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Why is the entry for the "Isle of Ewe" not simply "Ewe"? Other islands like Iona or Raasay do not have entries like "Isle of Iona" or "Isle of Raasay".

2. "Occupation at a site on Rùm is dated to 8590 ±95 uncorrected radiocarbon years BP".

Is there are reason for adopting BP instead of using a more accurate date followed by BC? As time goes by the given BP figure needs to be constantly updated which doesn't make sense and it makes it hard to remember.

3. The subsection called "Norwegian control" uses the word "Norwegian" 5 times (including the title of the subsection itself). I think the word should be replaced by "Norse" which is more chronologically appropriate since "Norwegian" is probably anachronistic. I welcome comments from experts on this specific subject.

4. "A rebellion by his nephew, Alexander of Lochalsh provoked an exasperated James IV to forfeit the family's lands in 1493."

This should be followed by a short but clear explanation.

5. "The widespread immigration of mainlanders, particularly non-Gaelic speakers, has been a subject of controversy".

Expand and explain or remove.

ICE77 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

:Regarding #1, most likely because Iona and Raasay are not also common nouns. A ewe is a female sheep.

:As for #2, BP is the standard for radiocarbon dates, and it doesn't need to be constantly updated because the standard "present" is set at the year 1950. I'm not sure how you expect to get "more accurate" than radiocarbon without a time machine.

:And since I'm here, #3 is a non-issue. The references are all to the Kingdom of Norway, so "Norwegian" is more correct than "Norse."

:I can't speak to your other points. 2604:2D80:D50A:F300:0:0:0:D7FC (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference between "English-speaking" and "English" is surely blindingly obvious and to change one for the other deliberately alters what is being said. As "English" indicates origins in England, to substitute the word for "English-speaking" falsely excludes the influence of English-speakers from elsewhere, particularly, notably and, again blindingly obviously, those from Scotland. Or are you perhaps making a point? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

:English indicates origins in England or from the English people. England was not always a fixed, geographic term. The English language and people still existed before as a concept and ethnic group even when they were divided between 7+ kingdoms and their borders fluctuated rapidly.

:In the same way you get pockets of ethnic Russians and ethnic Germans all over Europe in hisorical and present times, you can get ethnic English people existing OUTSIDE OF England, amazingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

::Neither amazing, in dispute nor pertinent to what the article is saying here. Making a point then. Not the place. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your weird concept of geographic nationalism doesn't exist in the real world, Mutt. Ethnic groups are not tied to geography even if they establish a traditional homeland for themselves. Again need we hyphenate every use of the term Norse and Gaelic and Brittonic with -speaking? It is completely redundant. You're already grouping all English speakers as a people, the -speaking is redundant and you're applying it selectively to one group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

:Desist from impertinently attributing to me views I have not expressed. Having patent deficiencies challenged in your edits does not imply the challenger's advancement of some imagined viewpoint you believe yourself to be countering. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mutt you did express such views. Your opening comment in this discussion expressed those exact views, namely that ethnic English people from Scotland are distinct from ethnic English people from England, because of distinct political identities? But Celtic-speaking and Norse-speaking peoples do not have distinct political identites?

:A patently false and ludicrous "interpretation", at the most charitable: my words are above, do not tell me what I really meant. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your words are above, Mutt. And in that opening comment you mention how English-speaking people from Scotland with English surnames are somehow distinct from English-speaking people from England with English surnames because? You've acknowledged ethnic English people can exist outside of England? So why the distinction between English-speaking and English just because one group is from another geographic area?

Are you saying English-speaking people with English surnames from Scotland are not English in an ethnic sense? What exactly are they then, Mutt? How would you define them in an ethnolinguistic sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

To put this into perspective for you you're saying native English speakers born in Scotland with English surnames are... Scottish yes? Historically and today they're ethnically distinct from native English speakers born in England with English surnames, because they existed in what was formerly a separate political state.

Well what if a native Russian speaker is born and raised in Scotland with a Russian surname. What is he, Mutt? Is he ethnically Scottish too? If you can't distinguish between ethnolinguistic and political identities then you shouldn't really be editing Wikipedia in the first place.

Better still what would you call someone from Wales when it was legally a part of England, Mutt? Is a Welsh speaker from the Kingdom of England English because he is from the country of England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

:If this was ever about improving an article on the Hebrides it has strayed very far: WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, Mutt, I'm trying to address the points you raised against my edits. Namely that English-speaking and English mean the same thing, at least in this context. And that I can't understand why you don't want -speaking affixed to every ethnic group of the British Isles, just the English it seems.

And if that is the case then why, exactly? There's better places to discuss this maybe but your stance on distinguishing between [ethnic group] and [ethnic group]-speaking seems selective and hypocritical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I question the following: "The British government's strategy was to estrange the clan chiefs from their kinsmen and turn their descendants into English-speaking landlords whose main concern was the revenues their estates brought rather than the welfare of those who lived on them." (refers to post-Culloden activity). Both the cited reference (Hunter) and other historians make clear that a sequence of monarchs and governments had sought to impose control on Hebridean clan chiefs. Picking out the single instance of post-Culloden repression is misleading in its brevity. Without mention of other factors that created "landlordism" among clan chiefs, this single sentence should not appear in the article. As an alternative to deletion, the article could mention the Statutes of Iona (which were specifically targeted at Hebridean chiefs), which, among other things, compelled eldest sons of more affluent families to be educated in English-speaking schools. The rising need for cash among clan chiefs was also derived from the obligation to attend the Privy Council in Edinburgh, and large financial sureties required for the good behaviour of their clansmen. (This whole picture then moves into the problem of chronic debts and the resultant largescale clearout of hereditary landowners.)

The mention of the clearances has no reference to the potato famine. This is a particular problem as Hunter is used extensively as a reference, yet he is the historian who has oversimplified his understanding of the famine (as he acknowledges in the preface to the second edition of The Making of the Crofting Community). The famine was, for many, the proximate cause of emigration. At a minimum, it would be better to use more than one source and include a link to the Highland potato famine. It would be entirely wrong for a reader of this article to go away with the impression that the sole reason for clearances in the Hebrides was the introduction of sheep.

Achieving the above improvements without creating too much additional text will be a challenge.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are some of the island names italicized in the tables? There doesn’t appear to be any explanation. 99.73.35.160 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:I think it is clear that someone has decided to italicise island names which are in Gaelic. This is, I think, quite acceptable where the island name has no genuine English langauge equivalent. However, it has not been done consistently. 'Danna' for instance is also the English language name. I will tidy this up. It would probably mean only using italics where the article name has a diacritic not used in English (although there is likley a common English language spelling without the accent). Ben MacDui 16:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

::Done - the article titles are not consistent, which means thare are some judgement calls involved. Ben MacDui 16:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)